And the way preferable to RWA is what exactly?

This is interesting stuff, let's hear about the ideal governing arrangement.

Ummm, lesse. Our choices are ... fascism, or something else. Alan, I'll take "something else" for $200....

Cheers,

World famous metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-gogologist Nabalzbbfr informs us that (as revealed by his theoidiocy) divine providence has provided to us the best of all possible wars, and the best of all possible leaders.

Then he accuses us of being Panglossian.

So that shooter will seem reasonable in comparison. (He actually makes Dick Cheney seem reasonable in comparison!) And shooter is 100% right about one thing. RWA is indeed a euphemism for fascist.

Now shooter apparently finds RWA "interesting". Now isn't that precious. Just like his dear leader that certainly would be the right-wing brain in action, wouldn't it.

Let's tune in and find out if he can knock it up a notch to "recognizing", "identifying" and maybe even - yes, let's go for broke everybody - "mortifying" over what he discovers, thereby proving he actually has a functioning brain.

And yes, shooter, this is utter dismissiveness and contempt, with nary a hint of constructive debate or conversation. But since you can't find it in yourself to treat the Constitution of the United States nor the Bill of Rights with anything better, you really don't deserve it either. Fact is, this post is purely for my own enjoyment, but do feel free to glean some edification from it - assuming you can.

Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:

Make many incorrect inferences from evidence. heh

-- Jim Montague

Actually, the part I liked best was the wiki entry for right wing authoritarianism....

It(RWA) is not an ideological measure, but a social psychological one that, in spite of its name, is not necessarily associated with right-wing political views. The nature of the RWA scale leads to predictions that High RWAs will tend to support the current political authority, regardless of the ideology expounded by those in power. For example, it was predicted, and confirmed that in the old Soviet Union, high RWAs were supporters of the Communist Party because it represented the established authority even though it would be described as a left wing Party. (The Authoritarian Specter)

Translation: We've decided that ANY authoritarian behavior, even by left-wing individuals, will be called right wing authoritarianism.

The truly wonderful part is the Altemeyer categories describing most of humanity. That could be a problem for liberals with those traits, but that's taken care of by describing everything bad as Right Wing Authoritarianism. Mercy, it doesn't get more convenient than that.

"Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:

"Make many incorrect inferences from evidence. heh

Jim Montague"

Actually, the part I liked best was the wiki entry for right wing authoritarianism....

Translation: We've decided that ANY authoritarian behavior, even by left-wing individuals, will be called right wing authoritarianism.

Wrong again. Shooter, this discussion is not from wiki -- even though I respect the concept and construction of that site. I'm thinking that you have skimmed or even scrolled past Paul Rasenburg's comments here, much as you treat Glenn's posts. That's why you come off as such a characterature. You don't read enough -- ever -- to understand the debate, and so you don't get the joke when you are poked fun of.

Pity.

The truly wonderful part is the Altemeyer categories describing most of humanity.

You haven't read it at all. Otherwise you wouldn't make that mistake. You're simply picking up on the name.

That could be a problem for liberals with those traits, but that's taken care of by describing everything bad as Right Wing Authoritarianism. Mercy, it doesn't get more convenient than that.

*Worries* it's a possible *problem* for liberals.

shooter is a dog chasing its tail, and a particularly short tail at that.

-- shooter242

World famous metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-gogologist Nabalzbbfr informs us that (as revealed by his theoidiocy) divine providence has provided to us the best of all possible wars, and the best of all possible leaders.

Then he accuses us of being Panglossian.

Real good pun on the word "theodicy" there. Subtle on sooooo many levels here. I take my hat off to you, sir.

Cheers,

When I was in junior high, I thought I could lead my fellow classmates to Jesus using the "Romans Road." I had my little bible (literally tiny bible) highlighted.

I would love to see if Nabalzbbfr or GWB remember that road to salvation.

LeCastor makes some sense. A bit more sense the Glenn Greenwalds original article, though. Reynolds questions, though, are still fair, and still evaded.

Except when LeCastor says: "How the US acts and now the insurgents act are not logically related.". Obviously, the rules that one side follows will impact the behavior of the other side.

Or when he says "the insurgents obviously know what they are doing...". They obviously are fascist fanatics with confused goals. They hide pretty well and some of them are good at surviving, but they have no political program and cannot agree on a leader. The insurgency has no hope of taking state power.

Or when he says "Because we're discussing something different -- the apparant rightwing racism of Ledeen and Reynolds". The remarks of Reynolds accusing the Left of racism were about the inconsistency of the Left in criticising napalm but not chlorine.

Hoag says the US is using banned napalm. Banned by whom? Or by what treaty? There was a UN-based treaty to ban napalm but the US did not sign it. The Sunday Mirror article Hoag referenced says this, so he knows.

The insurgency hasn't signed any treaties whatever, and obey no rules at all, so they are not in violation of any Conventions. If that is the reason for not criticising the use of chlorine then perhaps the Left is innocent of racism. But Greenwald should have said this. It's a better argument than he made.

The term is highly problematic when used in contemporary political discourse wrt Iraq. The Neocons can sell all the crap they sell because of ignorance of the region, (cultural, religious, tribal), that most Americans, like Areaman, are laboring under. There are many "insurgencies". Some of them are fighting each other much of the time.

The Mirror UK article is misleading.

"International law does not necessarily prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets, but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations' inhumane weapons convention (often referred to as the CCW) in 1981 Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of incendiary weapons (not only napalm), but a number of states have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), states are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, if they ratify at least two of the five protocols. The United States, for example, is a party to the CCW but did not sign protocol III."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm#_note-4